S.O 3808(E) is over 40 days old but still S.O 166 for issuing Domicile not amended by J&K Govt

LG Manoj Sinha targets effective delivery of public services but is the Executive below ready?

Daya Sagar

Definition for Domicile of UT of J&K was drawn on March 31, 2020 but even more than eight months after that the rules for grant of Domicile Certificate (DC) are not properly. Many may not believe but it is a fact of the times that earlier in State of J&K only a ‘Male’ who was not being given the status of a Permanent Resident of J&K Status on the basis of the Permanent Resident of J&K Certificate of his Female spouse but now Domicile Certificate of UT of J&K is being denied to ‘Male’ as well as ‘Female’ spouse of a Permanent Resident of J&K Certificate holder female as well as Male spouse. And to that same is the fate with the Domicile Certificate of UT of J&K in case one wants to get the Domicile certificate on the domicile certificate of his / her spouse. The deficiencies / wrongs in the Definition of Domicile as well as the rules ordered in May 2020 for issue of Domicile have been regularly pointed out over last 8 months. Surely it was due to the deficiencies / wrongs being submitted regularly that GOI had amended the Definition of Domicile of UT of J&K on 26th Oct 2020 vide S.O 3808 of 26-10-2020 but Government of UT of J&K has still not made the necessary change in the S.O 166 of 18-05-2020 (rules for issue of domicile ) and hence the local competent authority is denying the cases of the type discussed here.
It appears that still no amendment / clarification to rules in SO 166 have been issued by the J&K Government since had it not been so Mrs XXXX. would not have been denied DC on the basis of the PRC of her husband saying “Your Application DOM/0204/13Nov2020/xxxxxx has been Rejected Reason – Closed because ‘husband PRC apply to clause 1b’. Remarks -“Whereas ‘She’ could apply on 13th Nov possibly against Clause 1(a)of SO 166 of May 2020 which is for Domicile of a PRC holder or Clause 1b which is for the Domicile of the children of PRC holder and hence applied ( Clause 1(a) of Rule 5 as there was no other class available even after 26th Oct 2020 ) hoping that by atleast 13 November clarifications to SO 166 or amendment to SO 166 might have been issued in terms of ORDER S.O. 3808(E) 26th October 2020 of GOI where under definition of Domicile of UT of J&K in Section 3A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Act (XVI of 2010) was amended as — “After sub-section (2), insert:- ?(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), spouse of a domicile shall also be deemed to be a domicile for the purposes of sub-section (1)”.
To be brief while issuing order S.O. 1229(E) of 31-03-2020 & S.O. 1245(E) of 03-04-2020 laying down definition of Domicile of UT of J&K as well as while laying down the Rules for issue of Domicile under SO 166 of 18-05-2020 a number of deficiencies were left. But so unfortunately inspite of the fact that many requests / suggestions have been regularly made to the Government after 31-03-2020 and before & after ordering rules for issue Domicile of UT of J&K Certificate vide SO 166 of 18-05-2020 ( like for including in the definition of Domicile itself the reference of PRC ( Permanent Resident Certificate holder or State Subject) of J&K like 3A (2) 1) :- (c) or Spouse of a PRC/SS of J&K/ Domicile of UT of J&K shall be Domicile of UT of J&K ” and adding a Category in SO 166 of 18-05-2020 5(1-c) in rule 5 like (c ) Spouse of a Person possessing PRC/Domicile in terms of Section 3A (2b) read with Section -3A (1a) to get Domicile Certificate on the basis of Permanent Resident certificate/ Domicile Certificate of the spouse and (b) marriage certificate issued by Competent Authority/or any proof thereof. No doubt efforts to apply corrections have been made thereafter or clarifications are issue by Government but that has been always an half exercise leaving something still to be done in future.
It was on 28thSeptember that a tweet from a MOS in Union was circulated in social media :”After discussion with #JammuKashmirLG Sh Manoj Sinha & CS Sh Subramaniam, the UT Govt has agreed in principle to amend/modify rules for ease in issue of #DomicileCertificate. Formal orders being issued soon. This will particularly facilitate issuing Domicile Certificate to children producing PRC of any of the parents and women from outside married to PRC holder men”.
The tweet of 28 September, though late, surely appeared a welcome response to 10th September reportings & suggestions thereof in State Times Daily in reference to the case of baby Aahana, daughter of Ankita (PRC holder of J&K State). It had been a real shock on 09-09-2010 to learn from Mrs Ankita, woman Permanent Resident (PR) of J&K that still did not appear to have rights equal to a male PR of J&K even in UT of J&K as the Application DOM/0207/ 04Jul202/13012 1986 Dated 04-07-2020 of her daughter Ms Aahana for Domicile Certificate made under Rule 5(1b) of S.O 166 of 18-052020 was rejected through an e mail on 4th September ( after 66 days) reading <” From: J&K e Governance Team Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 7:28 PM Subject: Domicile Certificate Application Status Update To: Your Application DOM/0207/04Jul2020/130121986 has been Rejected Reason- Closed because ‘PRC of father not enclosed’. Remarks – Regards J&K e-Governance Team”>.Before that, as discussed in for going paras , immediately after 31-03-2020 it was brought to the notice of Government of UT of J&K that for taking care of confusions as may be there in view of earlier rules / procedures in erstwhile J&K State the definition of Domicile was needed to be recast something like” 3A (2) 1) :- (c) or Children/Spouse of a PRC/SS of J&K/ Domicile of UT of J&K shall be Domicile of UT of J&K” but that was not sportingly / well received and hence was the rejection of Ms Aahana application based on PRC of her mother since the competent authority / Tehsildar had to go by the text of rules. Anyhow that controversy / deficiency was removed by government by issuing re-clarifications vide 27-JK(GAD) of 20-10-2020 but only as regards the children and not the spouse. There too no amendment to SRO- 166 or the Definition of Domicile was issued and instead method of applying part corrections ( some may even still technically find faults in ) was adopted with Commissioner Secretary General Administration Department issuing clarifications regards the gender issues pertaining to children vide 27-JK(GAD) of 20-10-2020{“even if one of the parents ( mother or father ) is in possession of PRC the children would be entitled to for grant of Domicile Certificate.}.
Hence the issue of the Spouse was still left for people like writer to raise and was raised again around 25th October under caption” S.O 166 does not accommodate both male & female Non- PRC holder spouses of PRC holder spouse subjects of J&K.
It could be said that Government of India had no doubt taken notice of the observations made and maybe it was also due that the Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs) issued ORDER the S.O. 3808(E) 26th October 2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 96 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), where in under Item no 25 the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Act (XVI of 2010) Section 3A was amended as — ).At least after that it was expected that amendments as were also being suggested in media stories to rules as contained in S.O 166 of 18-05-2020 shall be issued or if not atleast clarifications ( like was done in case of children of PRC holder) will be sent to the concerned officers. But that has surely not happened till the time ( it is nearly 41 days) of writing this story since Mrs XXXXX after her 13 Nov application enclosing PRC of her husband was rejected on 16th November once again submitted application on 4th December enclosing the Domicile Certificate of her husband ( hoping that by that time the needed amendment to SO 166 of 18-05-2020 might have been issued in the shape of a new clause or provision or clarification ) but she again received a rejection mail on 07-12-2020 .
Should not the rejecting officer have clarified the matter in reference to S.O. 3808(E) 26th October 2020also?. Field officer may say that it is the Secretariat where the rules are amended and not the “field offices”. What harassment did it cause to Mrs XXX & to many like her too, could be well imagined. When will the process of making corrections end, are we not living in an era of Good Governance?
Daya Sagar Sr Journalist / Analyst Jammu &
Kashmir Affairs [email protected]